Self funded reviewer here :-). If you take money for gear you can't call it a review in my eyes. Getting gear in exchange for a review is a bit of a gray area but you are right one might tend to favor positive reviews if given gear for free. Bottom line for me is I watch each review hoping to glean a few nuggets of truth that will help me decide which product is for me. When I create reviews I tend to just provide info and not offer opinions which does upset some viewers but it makes it easier on my since I son't recommend anything really. Cheers my friend thanks for the video.
It’s not a gray area if you were given the camera. It’s a sponsored video that you are getting paid in views for. Gear reviews get far more clicks than technique videos. Anyone on that coveted list to get cameras from the manufacture is not going to bite the hand that feeds them with a bad review
@larrycoonrod5563 i was taking about accessories and maybe inexpensive lenses. I didn't know that any gear reviewers are getting free cameras but maybe some are. Disclosure is critically important so at least the viewer knows what the situation is and can take that into account when viewing. My intent is never to deceive on any level. My reviews have been greatly reduced lately because of some of the reasons Jeremy mentioned. I'm trying to focus more on in the field videos about using the gear.
If a review is paid or not does not change a lot. It belongs to the reviewer if its a honest review. The reviewer has to built his audience which is trusting him. Nowadays a lot of reviewers are not "reviewers" just marketing supporters for click rates and that's the problem. Keep on reviewing, Jeremy.
The biggest problem I have noticed is terminology. The lens is incredibly sharp FOR THE PRICE. Does that mean it sucks in the real world. As a professional photographer for 50 years I know you get what you pay for, it is often a trade off between what you need and what there is, but we don't want to have to guess at quality. Why don't reviewers say that a kit lens works better when covered in Vaseline. Off topic, one Voltarol ad said it was better than a placebo, ie better than nothing, truth even.
Even when reviewers are not "incentivized", many YT reviews suffer from "novelty bias" i.e. this must be better because it's newer and pricier. I have a hard time taking such reviews seriously without a side-by-side, feature-by-feature comparison with the older models.
I trust you and Steve Perry, I have been watching you since about your first vid, I just don't comment much..Keep being true to yourself and you will be fine and not have a guilty conscious to live with!
I think it’s ok for people to make them. A huge part of enjoying camera gear is talking about it. But I feel this market is too small to sustain disfavorable reviewer influence. It’s kind of sad because m4/3, panasonic g100, canon r100, canon rp, are examples of great budget gear that people think of as bad because a reviewer compared it vs a 6000usd camera with lenses the price of a used car. The best test of honesty for me has been only trusting reviewers that actually take pictures with the gear. The Phillipreeve review of the ttartisans 500mm led me to purchase it (even owning other pro grade telephotos), because the pictures they took show the lens can make ok pictures, and the flaws they found are real compromises at that price, and not a dissatisfied comparison to a more expensive lens 10 times the price.
Another contrabuter has mentioned this Jeremy that really the only reviews you want to take notice of are the ones that the photographer has spent a good time out in the field with the product and committed the experience to video. And don't beat yourself up about your lack of experience in this field with your earlier attempts - everyone has to start somewhere. 👍
The biggest fake and misleading trend these days is “Contractual Loaners”. The company doesn’t pay the reviewer but LOANS them a unit under contract. Right now we have a plethora of Hasselblad X2D units in the landscape RUclips world and the gushing is nauseating but the price of $8200 for just the body is worse.
It’s on the consumer. Folks need to understand that the definition of a “professional” in the photography world is someone that earns their income from photography, that’s it. Expertise and experience are a completely different thing. More reviewers than not don’t have either of those.
Watching a video listing the features of the latest new product is not something worth spending a lot of time on. The only videos that matter are ones about real-life experiences using the products for a year or more.
A review can never be objective and should at best be a small decision- making aid. Example: I wantd to buy a Canon R5 bsed on reviews. Then I went to the dealer and knew immediately that I wasn´t going buy the camera and I just had it in my hand and I didn`t try it out.
I bought a Sony A7iv based on YT reviews. I experienced very bad hit rate for sports. I rewatched all the material I could. Only Amazing Nature Alpha had tested and pointed out the bad AF results for subjects coming towards the camera. Jared Polin tested the camera at 6 FPS only, claiming he didn’t know he was limited because of the file format. I found out that 6 FPS only and fixed AF spot were the best settings I could use. The Northrups found 90% hit rate at 10 FPS in their initial review and in a recent test. I have never come close to that. So watch out ! Think about what is not said, what test is omitted. And if the reviewer says the hit rate is good without mentioning the actual hit rate, run away!
Self funded reviewer here :-). If you take money for gear you can't call it a review in my eyes. Getting gear in exchange for a review is a bit of a gray area but you are right one might tend to favor positive reviews if given gear for free. Bottom line for me is I watch each review hoping to glean a few nuggets of truth that will help me decide which product is for me. When I create reviews I tend to just provide info and not offer opinions which does upset some viewers but it makes it easier on my since I son't recommend anything really. Cheers my friend thanks for the video.
It’s not a gray area if you were given the camera. It’s a sponsored video that you are getting paid in views for. Gear reviews get far more clicks than technique videos. Anyone on that coveted list to get cameras from the manufacture is not going to bite the hand that feeds them with a bad review
@larrycoonrod5563 i was taking about accessories and maybe inexpensive lenses. I didn't know that any gear reviewers are getting free cameras but maybe some are. Disclosure is critically important so at least the viewer knows what the situation is and can take that into account when viewing. My intent is never to deceive on any level. My reviews have been greatly reduced lately because of some of the reasons Jeremy mentioned. I'm trying to focus more on in the field videos about using the gear.
If a review is paid or not does not change a lot. It belongs to the reviewer if its a honest review. The reviewer has to built his audience which is trusting him. Nowadays a lot of reviewers are not "reviewers" just marketing supporters for click rates and that's the problem. Keep on reviewing, Jeremy.
The biggest problem I have noticed is terminology. The lens is incredibly sharp FOR THE PRICE. Does that mean it sucks in the real world. As a professional photographer for 50 years I know you get what you pay for, it is often a trade off between what you need and what there is, but we don't want to have to guess at quality. Why don't reviewers say that a kit lens works better when covered in Vaseline. Off topic, one Voltarol ad said it was better than a placebo, ie better than nothing, truth even.
Even when reviewers are not "incentivized", many YT reviews suffer from "novelty bias" i.e. this must be better because it's newer and pricier. I have a hard time taking such reviews seriously without a side-by-side, feature-by-feature comparison with the older models.
I trust you and Steve Perry, I have been watching you since about your first vid, I just don't comment much..Keep being true to yourself and you will be fine and not have a guilty conscious to live with!
I’ve always held the position that if the equipment is no good I will not review it “if you can’t say anything good”……
I think it’s ok for people to make them. A huge part of enjoying camera gear is talking about it. But I feel this market is too small to sustain disfavorable reviewer influence. It’s kind of sad because m4/3, panasonic g100, canon r100, canon rp, are examples of great budget gear that people think of as bad because a reviewer compared it vs a 6000usd camera with lenses the price of a used car. The best test of honesty for me has been only trusting reviewers that actually take pictures with the gear. The Phillipreeve review of the ttartisans 500mm led me to purchase it (even owning other pro grade telephotos), because the pictures they took show the lens can make ok pictures, and the flaws they found are real compromises at that price, and not a dissatisfied comparison to a more expensive lens 10 times the price.
Another contrabuter has mentioned this Jeremy that really the only reviews you want to take notice of are the ones that the photographer has spent a good time out in the field with the product and committed the experience to video. And don't beat yourself up about your lack of experience in this field with your earlier attempts - everyone has to start somewhere. 👍
Well said!
The biggest fake and misleading trend these days is “Contractual Loaners”.
The company doesn’t pay the reviewer but LOANS them a unit under contract.
Right now we have a plethora of Hasselblad X2D units in the landscape RUclips world and the gushing is nauseating but the price of $8200 for just the body is worse.
@@paulvalerio3887 It seems that some X2Ds are given : Mads Peder Iversen was considering selling his.
It’s on the consumer. Folks need to understand that the definition of a “professional” in the photography world is someone that earns their income from photography, that’s it. Expertise and experience are a completely different thing. More reviewers than not don’t have either of those.
Watching a video listing the features of the latest new product is not something worth spending a lot of time on. The only videos that matter are ones about real-life experiences using the products for a year or more.
A review can never be objective and should at best be a small decision- making aid. Example: I wantd to buy a Canon R5 bsed on reviews. Then I went to the dealer and knew immediately that I wasn´t going buy the camera and I just had it in my hand and I didn`t try it out.
I bought a Sony A7iv based on YT reviews. I experienced very bad hit rate for sports. I rewatched all the material I could.
Only Amazing Nature Alpha had tested and pointed out the bad AF results for subjects coming towards the camera.
Jared Polin tested the camera at 6 FPS only, claiming he didn’t know he was limited because of the file format. I found out that 6 FPS only and fixed AF spot were the best settings I could use.
The Northrups found 90% hit rate at 10 FPS in their initial review and in a recent test. I have never come close to that.
So watch out ! Think about what is not said, what test is omitted. And if the reviewer says the hit rate is good without mentioning the actual hit rate, run away!
Nobody with any photography experience take the Northrops seriously. They are a joke and Tony is just plain creepy